9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 1122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tribunal to grant stay of demand. Though, in our considered opinion, the said proviso cannot be made applicable for extension of stay, as is present in the instant case before us, we still would like to rely on the said proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Act. Considering the compliance made to by the assessee to the said section 254(2A) of the Act; also considering the fact that the appeal for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that, out of the total demand raised on the assessee pursuant to rectification order in the sum of ₹ 292,92,86,531/-, a sum of ₹ 114,86,58,990/- has already been paid by the assessee either by way of physical outflow of funds or by giving consent for adjustment of refunds available in assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rejected by the ld. AO on the ground that assessee had already lost before the first appellate authority and the appeal is now pending only before the second appellate authority i.e. this Tribunal. 3.1. We find that for the A.Y.2014-15, the ld. AO under similar facts and circumstances had considered the matter which were pending before this Tribunal and had granted stay of demand. We further fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are correct. 3.3. We find that assessee had already remitted more than 20% of the outstanding demand. We find that the provisions of Section 254(2A) of the Act read with first proviso thereon stipulates payment of 20% of the demand for the Tribunal to grant stay of demand. Though, in our considered opinion, the said proviso cannot be made applicable for extension of stay, as is present in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
